Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

The summation is where we differ. In fact I think Aikido itself has demonstrably proven that just letting kokyu and ki *happen* through training is a demonstrable failure. In and of itself it is and should be a revelatory statement in the community that the existing methodologies have failed to produce the unusual power that kokyu and ki are known for on any consistent basis. Therefore just waiting around to experience it, -much more to actually learn it- through a training paradigm that statistically fails to produce it, is not much of viable strategy.

But how do you know his training paradigm fails to produce it? What is that training he is talking about? What if it's extensive solo training to develop the saika tanden (NB: "Saika" = kotodama "seika")? What if it is pair-work that you haven't seen before?

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

What makes matters worse is that now, on an international stage and with worldwide communication, there is an increasing number of teachers getting out and experiencing real kokyu and ki from many different sources that...surprise.....actually had a specific training model for kokyu and ki. AND as it turns out those methods are well established and were known by the arts founder and many others in the Asian arts.

And yet it appears that Osensei had a 100% failure rate for passing on these skills after the war, at a time when he purposely went to Iwama to establish his own art.

Quote:

Dan Harden wrote:

I understand that is not a very welcomed nor comforting revelation for many teachers, but resisting something that is well known and now being demonstrated consistently on world stage to the arts teachers and students it is not very wise strategy either. In the end, it will make those at the very top look like they are engaging in a very transparent protectionism.

Who is resisting here? If something comes along threatening one's art, that thing should be investigated and if it is truly better, then it should be incorporated. The head-in-the-sand approach is a poor way to protect a training model. I'm certainly not disagreeing with that and you may have noticed that I've been one of the people telling people who argue with you to try it out.

The last serious vacation I planned got cancelled, so I could buy a house -- that was in 2007. Do the math. Travel ain't in my budget -- not with two kids finishing college. If it does not combine with work it does not happen these days.

If you take the time to go through his post, most of it falls apart and has no actual basis of reality to it.

No. If you want to take them apart, do so. Everything I have done is based on BOTH study AND experience. It may be wrong in points -- but it is incumbent on anyone attacking them in good faith to examine and challenge those points of error he finds. I would value the contribution. But a naked declaration has no weight or merit.

OK folks, we got a lot of gorilla talk going on here - 600lb, 400lb, and even Howard saying he is pushing 450lb; granted, Howard definitely is a force to be reckoned with on the mat, but I think he does himself some injustice - I don't think he is past 300lb, yet

Since I am stickler for detail and accuracy, the real term is 800lb Gorilla - more info on that here:

No. If you want to take them apart, do so. Everything I have done is based on BOTH study AND experience. It may be wrong in points -- but it is incumbent on anyone attacking them in good faith to examine and challenge those points of error he finds. I would value the contribution. But a naked declaration has no weight or merit.

If it is based upon experience, please list the dates you have attended the seminars/workshops with "vetted" IP/aiki teachers ... crickets chirping ... you haven't.

If it's based upon study, please list how you've studied and researched what all those people who have studied with "vetted" IP/aiki teachers ... crickets chirping ... you can't, your theories have never deviated. Yet, 100% of those who did, have changed their studies.

You do not value the contribution because you have tossed it aside over and over again as irrelevant. Had it been assigned relevance, we would not be having this kind of discussion ... over and over and over again. The only reason we do is because I am talking to the readers rather than directly at you. Once you gain "BOTH study AND experience" in this area and start dissecting it appropriately, I may "examine and challenge those points". Until you are even close to the heart/truth/spirit of the matter ... the crickets are playing a nice tune.

I would love to see what ALWAYS happens. Yet when you find someone like me, who openly states that what you are saying doesn't add up, you stay behind your computer instead of meeting with me publicly so you can show what you claim.

As this debate has gone on, I have gotten a lot of emails. Emails from people like me, who said you did the same thing to them, you made outrageous claims, then wouldn't let them come to your seminars.

If you don't want to meet me at a seminar, I would be happy to meet with you anytime you're in California. I would love to "touch hands" with you. As a professional martial artist shouldn't you be interested in making that happen?? I claim that all the "work" you have done is for not. I guess you could simply "sit behind your computer" and argue with me. Or you could show me, but you'd have to leave the keyboard to do that, Dan...

For the record... Dan H has been coming several times a year to my dojo to teach. Each time we have offered classes for both people who have had previous experience with Dan's work and separate classes for folks who have never trained with Dan before or have not had much experience with internal work. No one has been turned away from attendance at an event at my dojo.

To that I will add, having trained for almost four decades with many of the finest teachers of Aikido and what I might consider "aiki" arts, I have not encountered any teacher who is more excited about sharing what he knows or takes greater delight in a student "getting it" than Dan. When he teaches, you have to assign someone to insist he end class so you can eat... None of this 10 - noon, 2 to 4 stuff... he get so involved with the work, he'll go until everyone finally goes, "Dan, we have to eat... we're about to fall over." And he looks surprised when he sees the clock... like he can't believe class was supposed to end 45 minutes ago. Whatever else you want to talk about here, discussions about Dan not being available to check out are ridiculous. There are certain individuals, some friends amongst them, who have crossed certain lines of civility and I can't see why anyone would think that Dan would turn around and welcome someone who came in with a 'tude.

I will make one stab at explaining my own opinion that most of these discussions are a waste of time. There are two ways to communicate a set of skills in a martial art. One is to use language to describe what is being done. The second is to show the skill. Dan's methodology insists that his students be able to do both. If you can explain it but can't do it "You suck". If you can do it but not explain it "You suck".

The issue here is that "showing" ones skills requires that one meet face to face and puts hands on. The issue with language requires that the folks trying to communicate have a common language. Since we are on the internet, we are forced to use language. But the folks arguing here do not have a common language, which as far as I am concerned, makes most of the discussion ridiculous.

The idea that engineering / physics models can explain what is being done in "aiki" is possible if one just wishes to explain in a sort of overview how forces might be balanced or directed. But the fact is that "aiki" and internal skills involve the action of the intent on the myofascial structure. I cannot remember anywhere in my readings of physics works ever hearing the terms intent or myofascial ever used. Not in engineering either.

So, lets assume that you have an "engineer / mathematician" who has some skill at Aikido. He may understand what he is doing and he may conceptualize it in engineering or physics terms. But his ability to explain what he is doing to a group of folks who were unfamiliar with the terminology is about zero until he can show what he is doing and develop an understanding of how he uses his terms. In my opinion, the terminology of physics and engineering is pretty close to useless for productive discussion of how to do body skills. Neither of these descriptive systems were designed to describe body skills or talk about the interaction between the mind and body.

On the other hand, the Indian, Chinese, Japanese literature offers highly developed descriptive terminology for precisely this purpose. This terminology has been developed over a period of two thousand years or more. If one understands the terminology in Sanskrit, one can find the identical terms in Chinese. The same terms made it into Japanese. This terminology was specifically designed to describe at an extremely detailed level what one needs to do with ones body and ones mind to have the skills which we might call "aiki".

Aikido literature, at least as it exists in English to date, simply does not have anything like the descriptive terminology that exists in the Chinese internal arts. Interestingly, if one is fluent in Japanese, one can find the same concepts and terminology in Japanese martial arts literature, and this is true of the writings of Morihei Ueshiba as well, they simply haven;t been translated in to English.

Tohei made more of an effort to have a "principle based" descriptive terminology to teach the art. Compared to the sophistication of the Chinese model, it was only a very simple and quite general starting point. Post war Aikido simply doesn't have a descriptive terminology that is body centered and very useful for developing the actual body / mind skills we are ostensibly trying to develop.

Anyway, most of the discussion here is like listening to two people speaking different languages yelling at each other. One person is providing lengthy explanations in Urdu, which hardly anyone in the audience understands. The other is using Lakota Sioux to try to describe the same thing. Each "yells' at the other but neither can really communicate nor can the audience even understand the argument because there is no common descriptive language that is agreed upon.

If you can get repeated exposure to a teacher who has a consistent terminology and can show you in his or her body and your own what these terms mean, then you can start to talk to other people who have that same experience. Since most of the folks here do not share this terminology or. as Aikido people, have only the most simplistic, even misleading, terminology to describe what they are doing. well, the whole discussion ceases to be worth while.

If "experience and study" were as limited as suggested...then why would anyone even bother participating here?

Quote:

You do not value the contribution because you have tossed it aside over and over again as irrelevant.

If I did not value the contribution, it would be a waste of time examining it in light of my study and experience ... I do not view it as a waste of time. That I do not have the time ( or feel the strength of need) to approach it in the way you demand -- does not make my interest less sincere, nor are my points meant to be critical or to substitute for any one else's approach.

I am not talking about methods of training -- other than elucidating aiki-taiso as a basis for illustrating the principles that they embody -- so that they are understood and applied to develop the working principles that they plainly invovlve -- and not merely uselessly imitated like some kind of a cargo cult (which is a legitimate criticism of some ways the art is transmitted, I grant you)..

I am looking at principles of action. Understanding principles is not a method of training -- nor is it meant to be -- it is meant to aid ANY method of training by pulling out applicable mechanical and physiological principles that are in play.

Just had a quick thought: is an inflated balloon a clash of forces? Is that even an apt analogy?

You can certainly have a "clash" of forces within ones self. For example pushing with the shoulder dillutes any power generated below it, as pushing with the shoulder pushes back into ones self and negates some of the power generated elsewhere.

I'm not so sure this applies to the balloon model, as local muscle usage is reduced, thus the "dillution" discussed above does not happen to the same degree.

Just a passing thought: I logged into AikiWeb last week and somehow wound up on a Forum posting from 2006. In this posting Dan H. was trying to explain his position re aiki. Don't remember who he was talking to, but it seems like we have come full circle. I began to wonder how many times and for how long this discussion has been going on??

Just a passing thought: I logged into AikiWeb last week and somehow wound up on a Forum posting from 2006. In this posting Dan H. was trying to explain his position re aiki. Don't remember who he was talking to, but it seems like we have come full circle. I began to wonder how many times and for how long this discussion has been going on??

I first started talking to Dan about this stuff over the internet some fifteen years ago. Thankfullly, I finally got to meet him.

The idea that engineering / physics models can explain what is being done in "aiki" is possible if one just wishes to explain in a sort of overview how forces might be balanced or directed. But the fact is that "aiki" and internal skills involve the action of the intent on the myofascial structure. I cannot remember anywhere in my readings of physics works ever hearing the terms intent or myofascial ever used. Not in engineering either. ... Neither of these descriptive systems were designed to describe body skills or talk about the interaction between the mind and body.

I have been working through connections between these mechanics issues and the physiological systems that deal with them -- and specifically the myofascia -- on these forums since 2008.

Myofascia, a form of "smooth muscle" tissues (like the uterus) are affected by certain hormones and by certain mechanical factors. (Notably, they are immune to adrenaline/epinephrine.) But they are contracted by oxytocin (the "loving protection' hormone), by inflammation hormones (histamine) -- and more particularly for our purposes, by repetitive mechanical stress and vibrations, as anyone knows who has experienced clenched hands on a yard tool like a shovel or rake used repetitively.

These first two effects provide increased structural integrity -- and in the second case, aids limb immobilization when injured. The latter mechanical observation however is more subtle. Local twitch response is a spinal reflex, like flexor/extensor reflexes. When it is problematic, it is implicated in myofascial trigger points -- which frequently have a postural cause -- a disruption of normal stable structure to which the body responds by excessively activating myofascial bundles -- which shows that they are intimately concerned wiht posture -- i.e.-- structural stability.

Local twitch response is also seen in what the literature describes as physically "strumming" a tautened muscle bundle. Vibrations thus have physiological effects on reflexive action and the myofascial tissues which strengthen structure. We already know that tonic vibrations are involved in vertical structural stability as a mechanical matter, so these are plainly related aspects of the structural system that we are working on. Furitama is a resonant frequency ~5/~10 Hz. Resonance is something potentially catastrophic that any structural protection system MUST be designed to respond to swiftly, and would be the obvious frequency at which to prompt such structural effects to have destructive effects on stability.

Long story short --all the shaking, shuddering stuff has a very real set of physiological objects to which it is directed, as well as the "crawliing skin" stuffs of myofascial "suits" attested and which are also implicated in the very reflexive protection systems I have noted above. Structural stresses, particularly torsional stresses, create moments in patterns that are the precise mechanical equivalents of moving, loopy oscillations (rotations). When you add the tonic vertical oscillation of mechanical stability, we are plainly in the right territory mechanically and physiologically for the types of structural manipulations and responses in play on these deeply interrelated issues.

This is an objective language for the phenomena we are discussing, empirical and not subject to some of the defects of transmission we have historically seen.

Quote:

On the other hand, the Indian, Chinese, Japanese literature offers highly developed descriptive terminology for precisely this purpose. ... Aikido literature, at least as it exists in English to date, simply does not have anything like the descriptive terminology that exists in the Chinese internal arts.
....
If you can get repeated exposure to a teacher who has a consistent terminology and can show you in his or her body and your own what these terms mean, then you can start to talk to other people who have that same experience.

And is the art to be doomed again ? It has failed before in relying on a recurring pattern of using idiosyncratic bodies of terminology, framed on ad hoc models, analogies or metaphors to illustrate its actions -- and tied only on the personally shared experience of those who have been able to label those the hysical phenomena with those terms?

When they die the knowledge dies with them, and only a select few seem to "get it" natively in those terms. Kudos to those who may have found (or found again) their superior methods -- but the content of the physical objects or systems to which those methods are directed can be easily lost or misapplied -- look at the aiki-taiso/chinkon kishin. In other words, we would be replicating the very problem that has recurrently cause the transmission of the knowledge to fail, over and over again.

I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing. He knew how he had developed it and developed it further -- and tried to use those traditional modes to transmit it -- and failed MISERABLY. I could go further and say that the existence of "okuden" teaching on these issues may be more a function of the face-saving of Asian teachers whose personal accomplishment is often not shared by many of his immediate students -- who did not "get it." And when they find those who do "get it" they can save face as to their ability to teach what they plainly know -- by claiming "secret teaching" for those selected as "worthy" students -- precisely because they do not actually need it -- they just "got it."

Ueshiba recognized this problem implicity. He tried a different mode he hoped might work better. His recourse to Kojiki's concrete mythical images is an admission that some of the other more traditional means of communicating principles in CMA and equivalent Japanese adoption was necessary. So he tried the concrete images embodied in myth. His Doka are a similar but slight variation on the same approach -- and they actually have invaluable images that match these concepts.

But his approach also failed MISERABLY -- in terms of ensuring regularity of transmitting the spooky "power" that some people DO GET from the training methods he nonetheless transmitted -- Ikeda (whom I have felt) is among the most recent crop of aikido leadership that seem to have "got it." IMO. It is in feeling him and precisely in wrestling with this confusion in the traditional concepts that caused me to pursue the task of finding a more correct way to overlay the Western concrete objective terms onto the Eastern terms. I have had a modicum of success -- if any one cares to read my blog posts.. I can define ki in terms of purely Western ideas, and with consistency of reference in BOTH systems. I don't think Ikeda is willingly inscrutable -- I think he may lack what O Sensei and Sagawa lacked -- a more reliable way of putting what he knows.

Aiki -- being an applied aspect of ki -- and a subtle one -- has required this degree of delving into the mechanics and physiology. I think the effort has been both fruitful and worthwhile. I am not actually indulging any advice on method at all. What works works. But the old concepts are the danger to future transmission, and have proved so, over and over again. In debates over the terms of reference (hardly just little ole me alone) they can be a danger to present transmission as well.

While nothing is perfect, physiology and mechanics are not vulnerable in those ways. This body of concepts I have been teasing out promises more yet -- and not from agreeing with me -- but for anyone willing to wrestle with their mind on these concepts as willingly as they will do with their bodies -- they will assure the future of their skills and methods because they will be better able to describe them in objective terms..

The bottom line is simple. Beyond all debate and lengthy and discussion:
1. The results of his theories (of what Ueshiba was doing) produced him, right?
2. The results of my theories (of what Ueshiba was doing) produced me, right?

Let's find out which model produced results that were amazing, exceptional, unusual or different.
You could even scan the internet and find out who has met us both and what they had to say. You know, sort of like buying car. Consumer reports and all that. Maybe that might help you decide.

Do you want unusually powerful skills? Who feels like what?
Dan

This post bears repeating. I offer my dojo as a site for this seminar. We can schedule for 2013.

Erick wrote:I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing. He knew how he had developed it and developed it further -- and tried to use those traditional modes to transmit it -- and failed MISERABLY.

To the contrary, Sagawa had a very detailed and specific training regimen that drove the development and refinement of his skill throughout his life. He chose not to share it with others until a few years before his death. Once he did share some of his training methods, his students started to develop skills.

Sagawa said (as translated from Transparent Power, by Tatsuo Kimura):
"I have taught my disciples a few things about how to train because no matter how much they trained, got strong, and challenged me, I still managed to throw them around easily -- but until a few years ago, I didn't tell anyone even this much. Having a secret method known only to you leads to improvement. If you teach others everything, you become just like everyone else. You lose the drive to advance. I have my own methods that no one else knows about, which I have continued to practice."

I am not talking about methods of training -- other than elucidating aiki-taiso as a basis for illustrating the principles that they embody -- so that they are understood and applied to develop the working principles that they plainly invovlve -- and not merely uselessly imitated like some kind of a cargo cult (which is a legitimate criticism of some ways the art is transmitted, I grant you)...............

Erick
Maybe you can talk to the principles involved with the aiki-taiso, how they relate to movement, some level of detail in how they should be taught and how they connect to the waza. I am interested in how you see them teaching connected body, keeping the shoulders out of the picture, training integrated movement and whole body generated from the center.

The aiki-taiso seem to be one set of solo exercises that everyone could add to their kitbag.

I have been working through connections between these mechanics issues and the physiological systems that deal with them -- and specifically the myofascia -- on these forums since 2008.

Myofascia, a form of "smooth muscle" tissues (like the uterus) are affected by certain hormones and by certain mechanical factors. (Notably, they are immune to adrenaline/epinephrine.) But they are contracted by oxytocin (the "loving protection' hormone), by inflammation hormones (histamine) -- and more particularly for our purposes, by repetitive mechanical stress and vibrations, as anyone knows who has experienced clenched hands on a yard tool like a shovel or rake used repetitively.

These first two effects provide increased structural integrity -- and in the second case, aids limb immobilization when injured. The latter mechanical observation however is more subtle. Local twitch response is a spinal reflex, like flexor/extensor reflexes. When it is problematic, it is implicated in myofascial trigger points -- which frequently have a postural cause -- a disruption of normal stable structure to which the body responds by excessively activating myofascial bundles -- which shows that they are intimately concerned wiht posture -- i.e.-- structural stability.

Local twitch response is also seen in what the literature describes as physically "strumming" a tautened muscle bundle. Vibrations thus have physiological effects on reflexive action and the myofascial tissues which strengthen structure. We already know that tonic vibrations are involved in vertical structural stability as a mechanical matter, so these are plainly related aspects of the structural system that we are working on. Furitama is a resonant frequency ~5/~10 Hz. Resonance is something potentially catastrophic that any structural protection system MUST be designed to respond to swiftly, and would be the obvious frequency at which to prompt such structural effects to have destructive effects on stability.

Long story short --all the shaking, shuddering stuff has a very real set of physiological objects to which it is directed, as well as the "crawliing skin" stuffs of myofascial "suits" attested and which are also implicated in the very reflexive protection systems I have noted above. Structural stresses, particularly torsional stresses, create moments in patterns that are the precise mechanical equivalents of moving, loopy oscillations (rotations). When you add the tonic vertical oscillation of mechanical stability, we are plainly in the right territory mechanically and physiologically for the types of structural manipulations and responses in play on these deeply interrelated issues.

This is an objective language for the phenomena we are discussing, empirical and not subject to some of the defects of transmission we have historically seen.

And is the art to be doomed again ? It has failed before in relying on a recurring pattern of using idiosyncratic bodies of terminology, framed on ad hoc models, analogies or metaphors to illustrate its actions -- and tied only on the personally shared experience of those who have been able to label those the hysical phenomena with those terms?

When they die the knowledge dies with them, and only a select few seem to "get it" natively in those terms. Kudos to those who may have found (or found again) their superior methods -- but the content of the physical objects or systems to which those methods are directed can be easily lost or misapplied -- look at the aiki-taiso/chinkon kishin. In other words, we would be replicating the very problem that has recurrently cause the transmission of the knowledge to fail, over and over again.

I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing. He knew how he had developed it and developed it further -- and tried to use those traditional modes to transmit it -- and failed MISERABLY. I could go further and say that the existence of "okuden" teaching on these issues may be more a function of the face-saving of Asian teachers whose personal accomplishment is often not shared by many of his immediate students -- who did not "get it." And when they find those who do "get it" they can save face as to their ability to teach what they plainly know -- by claiming "secret teaching" for those selected as "worthy" students -- precisely because they do not actually need it -- they just "got it."

Ueshiba recognized this problem implicity. He tried a different mode he hoped might work better. His recourse to Kojiki's concrete mythical images is an admission that some of the other more traditional means of communicating principles in CMA and equivalent Japanese adoption was necessary. So he tried the concrete images embodied in myth. His Doka are a similar but slight variation on the same approach -- and they actually have invaluable images that match these concepts.

But his approach also failed MISERABLY -- in terms of ensuring regularity of transmitting the spooky "power" that some people DO GET from the training methods he nonetheless transmitted -- Ikeda (whom I have felt) is among the most recent crop of aikido leadership that seem to have "got it." IMO. It is in feeling him and precisely in wrestling with this confusion in the traditional concepts that caused me to pursue the task of finding a more correct way to overlay the Western concrete objective terms onto the Eastern terms. I have had a modicum of success -- if any one cares to read my blog posts.. I can define ki in terms of purely Western ideas, and with consistency of reference in BOTH systems. I don't think Ikeda is willingly inscrutable -- I think he may lack what O Sensei and Sagawa lacked -- a more reliable way of putting what he knows.

Aiki -- being an applied aspect of ki -- and a subtle one -- has required this degree of delving into the mechanics and physiology. I think the effort has been both fruitful and worthwhile. I am not actually indulging any advice on method at all. What works works. But the old concepts are the danger to future transmission, and have proved so, over and over again. In debates over the terms of reference (hardly just little ole me alone) they can be a danger to present transmission as well.

While nothing is perfect, physiology and mechanics are not vulnerable in those ways. This body of concepts I have been teasing out promises more yet -- and not from agreeing with me -- but for anyone willing to wrestle with their mind on these concepts as willingly as they will do with their bodies -- they will assure the future of their skills and methods because they will be better able to describe them in objective terms..

Erick, those "old concepts" are actually useful, if you are provided hands-on guidance from a skilled practitioner. And I found that as you grow in skill, reading the more "mystical" things start to make sense, on a real sensational/physical level. So your idea of "old concepts" are the danger to future transmission is unfounded.

In fact, no offense to your knowledge, but I gain nothing from what you write. I am more comfortable with the metaphors and mental pictures that you denigrate.

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge. He even admitted it himself. Are you trying to suggest that it is a cultural thing for Asians to share their knowledge like that? They are notorious for keeping things secret from people! Especially when you take into account the "koryu" or "mura (village)" mentality of Japanese...a old school dude like Sagawa will not JUST share with anyone.

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge. He even admitted it himself. Are you trying to suggest that it is a cultural thing for Asians to share their knowledge like that? They are notorious for keeping things secret from people! Especially when you take into account the "koryu" or "mura (village)" mentality of Japanese...a old school dude like Sagawa will not JUST share with anyone.

Not only that, but the prevailing "old way" of teaching (which persists today) in many Asian cultures was to give specific things to people on a personal basis, tailoring what the student was taught to his individual traits and nature. In a roomful of people, each person would be given something to work on, and it might be quite different than what the student standing next to him would be given. As a result, individuals got certain things and developed in a particular direction that might be good for them, but they did not receive or learn the entire system. In that environment, typically one person was selected to learn the entire art and carry the body of knowledge into the next generation; the rest learned varying amounts of the system, but not the innermost core (the "family jewels").

I really don't think Sagawa was intentionally holding back the "secret knowledge.. I think he was one of those that "got it" in perceiving the manner of action -- but he was not well-able to describe for his own students what exactly he was doing.

Quote:

Lorel Latorilla wrote:

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge.He even admitted it himself.

At first reading both statements seem mutually exclusive. However, there is a way for both views to be consistent if one considers that maybe Sagawa stated that he purposely held back knowledge because he didn't want to admit that he lacked the ability to clearly describe what he was doing.

At first reading both statements seem mutually exclusive. However, there is a way for both views to be consistent if one considers that maybe Sagawa stated that he purposely held back knowledge because he didn't want to admit that he lacked the ability to clearly describe what he was doing.

Ron

Except that as was mentioned, when Sagawa chose to share some of his training methods with his students, they immediately started to make progress and improve in their abilities. His student Kimura, who faithfully and diligently trained in what Sagawa gave him, progressed further and at a quicker pace than his fellows. Evidently, Sagawa was quite capable of conveying his training methods effectively to others when he CHOSE to.

Erick, those "old concepts" are actually useful, if you are provided hands-on guidance from a skilled practitioner. And I found that as you grow in skill, reading the more "mystical" things start to make sense, on a real sensational/physical level. So your idea of "old concepts" are the danger to future transmission is unfounded.

Then why did it nearly fail? It nearly failed with Takeda in Japan by all accounts; Sagawa had few to follow him -- whether he intended it or not. China is a mass of splinters or impenetrable clans.

Quote:

In fact, no offense to your knowledge, but I gain nothing from what you write. I am more comfortable with the metaphors and mental pictures that you denigrate.

No offense taken -- or meant. I don't denigrate them. I value them. I mine them. I translate them -- there is no disrespect involved. Quite to the contrary. There is immense knowledge within them -- but it does not explain itself well. They simply do not serve as well in the forms they have come down to us, and for many reasons, some of which I have suggested. The proof is in the very precarious state of affairs that Dan and others have been very critical of. I don't reject anyone's points

Quote:

Sagawa was intentionally holding back knowledge. He even admitted it himself.

Because he said so? A man who just told the world he in essence lied to his students for decades -- and you believe what he is telling you? No, there is much more going on there.

Quote:

Are you trying to suggest that it is a cultural thing for Asians to share their knowledge like that? They are notorious for keeping things secret from people! Especially when you take into account the "koryu" or "mura (village)" mentality of Japanese...a old school dude like Sagawa will not JUST share with anyone.

No, I am not trading in stereotypes but in simple realities of a major -- and real-- cultural difference -- I am simply acknowledging that the perversities of on and giri in Japan make for tragedies real and literary that Shakespeare would have wept over. And the history of this body of knowledge alone is replete with such occasions...

At first reading both statements seem mutually exclusive. However, there is a way for both views to be consistent if one considers that maybe Sagawa stated that he purposely held back knowledge because he didn't want to admit that he lacked the ability to clearly describe what he was doing.

Ron

Well if that was true, someone like Kimura (who Sagawa said was the only person he really taught) would not have the skills. There a testimonies of many people that can give account to that. Sure some methodologies are better articulated than others, but to say that Sagawa didn't purposely hide stuff from students is ridiculous. Sagawa must have had a clear methodology with intelligible language...if he didn't, would it have been possible for him to get to the level of aiki that he got to? Is it all "hard work" and no understanding of what he is training?

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.

Well if that was true, someone like Kimura (who Sagawa said was the only person he really taught) would not have the skills. There a testimonies of many people that can give account to that.

Kimura plainly "got it' -- there is no reason to question it.. How and in what manner-- there's the question. The same question goes for Sagawa and his father in their experience with Takeda, and Ueshiba after them.

Quote:

Sure some methodologies are better articulated than others, but to say that Sagawa didn't purposely hide stuff from students is ridiculous. Sagawa must have had a clear methodology with intelligible language...if he didn't, would it have been possible for him to get to the level of aiki that he got to?

Did he? On what evidence? The statement of the man who in the same breath admits to deceiving students who trusted him? Don't get me wrong, noting this disconnect is not meant as disrespect -- but a man who burdens himself with the cloak of dishonesty suggests a greater shame he conceals.

Quote:

Is it all "hard work" and no understanding of what he is training?

Not "no understanding" -- but not a conceptual understanding from objective principles-- THAT is the Western way -- and it also has its faults -- but inconsistency and lack of distinctions is not among them.

Then why did it nearly fail? It nearly failed with Takeda in Japan by all accounts; Sagawa had few to follow him -- whether he intended it or not. China is a mass of splinters or impenetrable clans.

No offense taken -- or meant. I don't denigrate them. I value them I mine them. I translate them -- there is no disrespect involved. Quite to the contrary. There is immense knowledge within them -- but it does not explain itself well. They simply do not serve as well in the forms they have come down to us, and for many reasons, some of which I have suggested. The proof is in the very precarious state of affairs that Dan and others have been very critical of. I don't reject anyone's points

Because he said so? A man who just told the world he in essence lied to his students for decades -- and you believe what he is telling you? No, there is much more going on there.
No, I am not trading in stereotypes but in simple realities of a major -- and real-- cultural difference -- I am simply acknowledging that the perversities of on and giri in Japan make for tragedies real and literary that Shakespeare would have wept over. And the history of this body of knowledge alone is replete with such occasions...

1) Sure Takeda is of the same stock as Sagawa or even his son Tokumine. All of them engaged in some kind of "hiding knowledge". How did Takeda fail, when he was able to produce dudes like Sagawa, Ueshiba, Horikawa, etc.? Would you consider them failures? Was it ever a desire for someone like Takeda to spread the tentacles of Daito Ryu? What's more probable? That Sagawa, Ueshiba, and Horikawa were flukes? Or was it more probable that they, who were hungry for such knowledge, were dceliberately taught the secrets of Daito Ryu?

2) Erick. Trust me, if you were to show up and show us your skills, or if your method produced results, people would be talking about you. You would be in demand.

3) " A man who just told the world he in essence lied to his students for decades -- and you believe what he is telling you? " This is silly. The fact that Sagawa produced Kimura and a couple of others, or Takeda produced Ueshiba, Horikawa, and Sagawa shows that they were not lying about the fact that they were not lying. You are probably right, there is more to that. I think Sagawa, Horikawa, and Ueshiba were more hungry to learn than other students, which put them in the proper state to learn and absorb the things Takeda was teaching. Same goes for Kimura. Maybe you can interpret the "hiding" as Sagawa just giving up on his students, who he probably saw as pathetic guru worshippers that were more awed by the fact that they were learning in Sagawa dojo and didnt care about learning and refused to do the work. I can testify to that fact that this country (Japan that is) produces students that "learn" for other reasons besides learning. So it was not the methodology that was lacking, it was the lack of will to learn. The articulation of the methodology and its improvement is only helpful for the one who had the will to learn, and had his foot in the door. Maybe Sagawa and Takeda could have been more empathetic and be patient towards his students and find ways to ease them into a learning state, but I don't think they were ultimately interested in that. I don't think they were interested in the betterment of people through the medium of bujutsu. It was like, if you didn't want to learn, you will not learn--if you wanted to learn, you got it. In this context, it is understandable that Sagawa and Takeda gave hints to people who were not remotely interested in learning but ultimately did not go out of their way to teach the goods to these people. From soem other aspect and the way Sagawa probably interpreted it, this was "hiding the goods" from people.

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.

Kimura plainly "got it' -- there is no reason to question it.. How and in what manner-- there's the question. The same question goes for Sagawa and his father in their experience with Takeda, and Ueshiba after them.

Did he? On what evidence? The statement of the man who in the same breath admits to deceiving students who trusted him? Don't get me wrong, noting this disconnect is not meant as disrespect -- but a man who burdens himself with the cloak of dishonesty suggests a greater shame he conceals.

Not "no understanding" -- but not a conceptual understanding from objective principles-- THAT is the Western way -- and it also has its faults -- but inconsistency and lack of distinctions is not among them.

1) There is a tradition of training for these things, Erick. Maybe you should investigate these things. Dan learned Daito-Ryu from some legit guys...maybe you should ask him? He is part of that continuing tradition.You can pick his brain on how we as able to arrive at the skills he posseses now.

2) We can play burden of proof games all day. Sagawa obviously had a language to describe his skills that were phenomenologically convenient for him, otherwise he wouldnt have the skills he possesed. To suggest that his methodology failed is ridiculous--first, it didn't fail him. It actually made hima budo legend in Japan. Second, it didn't fail Kimura. Even if he went out of his way to make the principles more phenomenologically convenient for others, the burden of learning lies in the student. If he doesn't care about learning, he will never put himself into that proper state of absorbing the principles, even if they are being taught in a methodology that is carefully articulated.

3) I am not familiar with the language of physics, but what I have learned from the people I met works..even if the language they use were not derived from language of physics. I personally don't see any problems with metaphors and all that. Makes it easier for people who are not as physics-oriented. The fact that the "metaphoric" or "Asian" way of conveying principles has failed students is pretty delusional, I think.

Unless stated otherwise, all wisdom, follies, harshness, malice that may spring up from my writing are attributable only to me.